yet do they desire lo be protected by this gov-
ernment and to exercise all the rights of a
citizen under it?
Mr. PUGH. They pay all their taxes.
Mr. AUDOUN. Why should they have more
protection than others?
Mr. NEGLEY. I cannot see the justice of
this proposed distinction among our citizens.
Suppose all the men in Maryland were to be
of the denominations of Quakers, Dunkers,
and Menonists. What becomes of your mili-
tary law? Would there be any men to bear
arms in this State in case of an invasion?
The State of Maryland might be overrun and
trodden under foot, and there would not be a
citizen within its BORDER=0s to lift his arm in its
defence, I cannot conceive why any class of
men should ask to be exempt. Is it not a
part of morals that a man's first duty is to
his God, his second to his country, and his
last to himself? Why then should this dis-
tinction be made? If you exonerate one class
of religious people, why should not you ex-
cuse other classes? I say that individual
scrupulousness has not a right to come into
opposition to the law. If your country has a
right to demand your services, it is your
bounden duty to pay it; and no man has a
right to interpose individual scruples against
the demands of his country. If the State of
Maryland has a right, moral and political, .to
demand of its citizens military service no
individual, I care not what his religious
opinions may be, has a right to interpose
these scruples between the proper perform-
ance of his duty and his State. I do not con-
cede the principle that it is at all right. It
has been done in the past; but the federal
government do not recognize this and never
will recognize it.
Mr. STIRLING. The gentleman is entirely
incorrect in his fact, for the last enrolment
does recognize it.
Mr. NEGLEY. Does the constitution of the
United States recognize it?
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir; the constitution
of the United States does not say anything
about it.
Mr. NEGLEY. Does the present draft re-
cognize it?
Mr. STIRLING. Yes, sir; the present draft
does.
The PRESIDENT. They have to pay acom-
mutation.
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir; he is to perform
no duty excepting to attend to the sick in the
hospital. That is the law now.
Mr. SCHLEY. They pay a commutation
.and that is set apart as a separate fund.
Mr. STIRLING. That is the former act.
Mr. SCHLEY. No, sir; that is the provision
in the present draft. I am the receiver of
commutation money in Frederick, county, and
these are my instructions.
Mr. PUGH. They pay commutation for a
purpose, and that purpose is the hospital and |
not the army. That is what they pay the
money for. It is not paying an equivalent
for bearing arms, but only for hospital pur-
poses.
Mr. NEGLEY resumed: That is a distinction
without a difference. It is for hospital pur-
poses. I wonder if it is not for the army—for
the wounded soldiers of the army. You may
as well give it for the purposes of the army as
for anything else. Still I do not concede that
the principle is right to the rest of the citizens
of the State, I respect their conscientious
scruples. I say that there is not a more de-
serving class of citizens in the State. But I
have always doubted, and I always will doubt
the principle, whether it is right that that
class of citizens should have the right to de-
mand exemption from the performance of the
duties of citizens in any direction. They live
under our government. They receive its
protection. I think it is a duty in correct
morals, a religious duty that they owe, lo be
dutiful to ''the powers that be," to " render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's;"
and that includes the proper discharge of the
individual duty to the government if it means
anything at all. I have always doubted the
propriety of granting to a part of the State
this exemption from military duty; because
if the government has a right to claim the
obedience and military service of any portion
of its citizens, it has certainly cetens paribus,
an equal right to claim the services of all its
citizens. And if the government releases any
portion of its citizens from military duty, on
the same principle it ought to release all. For
one, on strict political principles, I cannot
vote for it,
Mr CUSHING. While I would not deny.
that the views of the gentleman from Wash-
ington have a great deal in them at first sight.
because there is a strong feeling with most of
us that all classes of men in a time of public
danger should do their part toward the com-
mon defence, yet I think that upon the question
of expediency alone it might be well for gen-
tlemen to consider whether the services of men
conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, who
have for many yea's of history suffered op-
pression and suffered death rather than to re-
sort to defending themselves by arms, if
forced into your military service, would avail
anything. Would not they be merely men
taken to the slaughter? They are men for-
bidden by what they believe to be a high re-
ligious principle, by what they think to be,
as the gentleman from Washington county
put it, their first duty, their duty to their
God, from bearing arms; believing the bear-
ing of arms to be inconsistent with their duty
to their God. Would they not be merely in-
efficient soldiers, men taken into your military
ranks simply to be slaughtered ?
There is no question but these men have
not only in this war, but in all previous wars
done much for the cause of 'the country, |
